Rajaganesh v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-07-2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Rajaganesh S/o. Chandrasekaran, No.209, Palanisamy Colony 2, Leela Apartment Near, Ponnaiyarajapuram, Coimbatore District.

..Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Inspector of Police, Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District.

Cr.No.160 of 2025

2. Arjunan, S/o. Subramani, No.43, South Housing Unit, Kallamedu, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore District.

..Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for records in Cr.No.160 of 2025 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the First Information Report as against the Petitioner herein pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner:

Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents:

Mr.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal side) For R1 ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.160 of 2025 registered for the alleged offences under Section 316(2), 318(4), 296 (b), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 72 of the City Police Act, 1888 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The de facto complainant is present before this Court and submits that he has got back the money and doesn't want to pursue the matter further and has no objection to quash the case. The accused is also present before this Court and requests for quashing the case on compromise.

3. Upon going through the allegations in the First Information Report, it is the case that originally the accused lured the complainant by showing a betting link, whereby people can bet regarding Indian Premier League (IPL) matches and win a lot of money. When the de facto complainant was about to participate in the same, the accused has insisted that if the de facto complainant parted with the money to the accused, then he would participate, and the returns were promised. However, the accused neither returned the money nor provided any link and hence the complaint.

4. Considering that it is not relating to a greater online fraud, but it is only between the accused and the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the case comes within the four corners of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab1 , is liable to be quashed.

5. In view there of, exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.16307 of 2026 stands allowed and the First Information Report filed in Crime No.160 of 2025 shall stand quashed.

6. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court, that there is discrepancy in the name of the accused. In the complaint, the complainant has mentioned the name of the accused as 'Arjunan', whereas the real name of the accused may be corrected to read as 'Arjuna' and the same is taken note of. 01-07-2026 sts 1Reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.

sts To:

1) The Inspector of Police, Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District.

[Cr.No.160 of 2025]

2) The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Order made in Dated:

01-07-2026